The wealthiest group in the US is the 70-95%, they have over double the wealth of "the billionaires".

But we can't talk about this because it includes a large tract of the white collar everyday man workforce.

This is why the focus is so heavy on billionaires, so heavy on increasing minimum wage, so heavy on protecting immigrants. Those are all virtuous values that also bolster the value of the 70-95%, while piling all the blame (and responsibility) on the 1%.

The wealthiest group in America is doing an excellent job at protecting (and growing) their wealth.

(for those wondering, the "back breaker" of this class is zoning laws and new housing, everyone is aware how intense NIMBYism is in the middle/upper middle class hives).

▲

kylecazar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The top 5% of the country have around 60% of its wealth. It is logical to bring that number down.

	▲	WarmWash 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's only logical when you view that wealth as a Scrooge Mcduck style vault of gold to raid, and are ignorant to the fact that it's almost entirely mark-to-market assets that have zero ability to buy food or pay for housing. The middle class has the gold vault (well the closest thing), and that's where the redistribution would happen. If you don't believe me, look at Europe. You can be a baker and make $35k yr, an SWE and make $65k yr, or a doctor and make $100k/yr. You may say "Yeah, that's great, they live happy lives!" But then convince American engineers they need to take a $140k paycut and the doctors a $220k paycut so that we can pay bakers $10k more a year. They'll just tell you the billionaires are the problem, and you'll believe them.

▲

losteric 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The top 1% own 31% and the top 10% own 68% of household wealth.

The group you’re talking about, 70-95 percentile, are often people that just own a house near a big city or a farm/small business.

	▲	CalRobert 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Tbf many of them are nimbys who made it impossible to build more homes in or near that city
	▲	xp84 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, and those people will be forced to liquidate their holdings (aka sell their houses in a market where most of the houses are for sale) to pay their share of the “wealth tax 2.0” after the “Billionaires” version fails to bring in enough money to pay for all the things promised.

▲

xp84 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly. This is why I don’t support all the current wave of Democrats’ “wealth tax” policy ideas. There isn’t anywhere near enough money in billionaires pockets to keep the promises they’re making - especially once you account for them simply fleeing overseas, and also for even if you “catch” them, the downward pressure on their assets’ value that forced liquidation would have.

Once the Democrats who are elected on the fantasy of making Musk and Bezos pay for everyone’s past and future college/student loans, Medicare for all, UBI, high speed rail, while simultaneously closing every fossil fuel plant and subsidizing clean energy to replace it at the same cost — once they’ve failed to raise enough to pay for 1/10 of those promises, they’ll be coming for everyone more “wealthy” than $100k net worth.

You can just look how successful the USSR was, or China before they sold out their own Communist ideals. Most people were just subsistence farmers, or factory workers living in crowded minimalist apartments if they were lucky.